Full Time / Part Time

Rob S · May 2004

Our company manual says that any employee working 30 hours per week is considered full time and eligible for benefits. In the past we used a 4 week rolling average to figure if someone was going over 30 hours per week. We recently brought in a new HR manager, and he says the DOL guidlines say that if half of the weeks worked are over 30, then they must be considered full time.

Example:
week 1 31 hours
week 2 10 hours
week 3 31 hours
week 4 10 hours

Under the old policy we had, this person would be part time because they are averaging 20.5 hours per week. By what our new person says, this person would be considered full time because half of the weeks worked were over 30 hours.

Does anyone out there know if DOL guidlines favor one of these over the other (or where I find this out)?

Rob Shuster

Pork · May 2004

rob: CALL YOUR LOCAL WAGE AND HOUR, Federal folks and ask them. Several years ago while undergoing an audit, the team leader of the interviews from their office, explained to me that their instructions from on high set their standard for judgement at 32 hours and more worked over a 16 week period of time would mean the part-time individual had met their qualifications for being a full time employee and the company had no choice but to provide that employee with benefits and increases in wages if there would have been an increase for any other new entrant full time employee. Further, she explained, that this individual, who may have missed a week of greater than 32 hours of work would have to re-start the 16 straight weeks of part-time employment. Thus, I learned to advise my managers when I witnessed a 16 week cycle developing to either return to less than 32 hours or HR would change their status to full time employed and would provide the benefits, accordingly.

I have not asked lately, however, I would if my local office was not just a satellite work unit where one must leave a message. It is a question that should be researched. I have looked in my regs, but can not find a clear reference to this.

PORK

Don D · May 2004

Maybe I'm nuts. I'm thinking the federal regulations don't address who does or does not qualify for an employer's benefits.

Kent · May 2004

That is my understanding as well, Don. I would be interested if someone could show us the regulations that manadate benefits after a certain period of employment.

Rob S · May 2004

Any other areas we should be concened about FT/PT other than benefits.

I did a search and the DOL website say that FLSA does not address FT/PT.

As long as we apply our company startards consistanly then there should be no EEOC issues.

Am I missing any other potential issues on this?

Rob

dixied · May 2004

Rob,

You may want to check your 401K and/or defined benefit plans.
Whether they are classied as FT or PT, our plans make the person eligble if they work over 1000 hours in a year.

Rob S · May 2004

401(k) and ESOP both say 1000 hours of service per year, and our benefit plans just say that employees work 30 hours per week will be covered.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Rob

Pork · May 2004

NO "Dandy Don" you are not nuts and the W/A government did not say we would be involation of FLSA or anything like that. What was explained is that after 16 straight weeks of 32 hours and more, we would be subject to question as to why we were not providing x employee with benefits who would then be, otherwise be a full-time employee and entitled to all perks, benefits, holiday pay, vacation, sick hours, PTO hours or whatever as any other employee registered as a full time employee.

You should not have read into the tread words that were not there. Maybe the above words help you to clear up you NUTS!!!!!

PORK

Don D · May 2004

Well Pork, Now that you've clarified, I suppose it would be fair to say that if a DOL Wage-Hour investigator were to tell me during an audit (of what I don't know), that he has concerns about how we define a full time employee, I might tell him it's none of his damned business how the business classifies it's employees, as long as we abide by federal laws, and federal law does not determine full time employment at the private level. I would probably be a bit more gentle, though, and might suggest that such definitions aren't within their purvue. Or for those of you who would be to shy to do that, you might ask, "Could you give me a reference so that maybe I could read the regulations addressing that?"

A business owns it's decision to offer such benefits as a 401(k) and insurance. The business also owns the right to determine, during the drafting of those benefit plans, who qualifies to participate and it all winds up in the Summry Plan Description. Neither the insurance broker, the insurance company, the third party administrators or any financial instution nor the federal government makes that decision for the employer. x:-)

Pork · May 2004

Maybe you would be so arrogant to broach the subject with the auditor while they are investigating other wrong doings within your company and really piss them off and start to sting you butt in many different places.

I find the listening and learning approach with auditors to be ever so much more comfortable to me. Taking their inquiries and learning has never hurt and enhances the emotional aspects of an on site audit.

Sometimes I forget you used to be on that side of the game and from time to time I'm shaken to my toes at your demeanor and distaste for their kind. As I stated before the poster should call and discuss the issues with the Wage and Hour folks, I find them very helpful in sorting through issues. The poster can then take your approach or no approach at all; take it or leaveit!!!

May you have a nice day for what is left of it.

PORK

Nina I · May 2004

I think the disparity between what we know to be true (federal DOL has no say in benefit levels) and what a Deputy Labor Commissioner TELLS us when making a visit, is the issue. We live in abject fear of any visit, as we have found their judgments/pronouncements to vary with the wind. Even when we are told "x" is fine, we never actually believe them. If they somehow tweak their, ahem, interpretation of a regulation from one year to the next, you'll never know until they're sitting in your office, looking under the baseboards for trouble. Pork, I wish we had the confidence and regard you seem to have....the idea of calling our local office and getting a definitive and CONSISTENT answer seems like a fantasy.

Pork · May 2004

NINA 1: Been there and done that, Harold is his name, and wage and hour investigation is his game.

He really is a good federal employee and likes to enjoy coming to work every day and doing what he is paid to do. I find conversing with Harold to be easy and satisfying. I feel like he is giving me the correct information and speaking from experience. I would not hesitate to call Harold on any wage and hour issue. He much prefers to help employers stay out of trouble rather than the other side of his job to audit/investigate/or whatever one wishes to term his on site activities, normally is generated because we the employer has shafted or alledged to have shafted someone prior to his visit.

"Dandy Don" is a retired x-federal employee and I would trust his conversations and advice all day long every day. I am sure in his past life, he was very much the same as a Harold, a solid federal employee.

What you read from me is also supported with experiences as a federal employee, all be it military service, where I dealt daily with civilian federal service employees.

May Everyone have a blessed Memorial Day and a safe long week-end.

PORK

Shadowfax · May 2004

Nina makes avalid point: we need to keep in mind the big picture when we're dealilng with the kings minions. But, as we all know, the definition of part time, full time, high time, no time is none of thier friggin business and they have no right to tell us their opinions. Mycomment about the expert on another thread, the guy from wout of town w/not a dime invested in your co. goes double for govnmt agents. And if they tell you so and so, what is wrong with asking them for the cite for their stupid pronouncements. I make a point of almost never asking govt for any guidance at all because:1 they don't have a clue; 2 they don't care whether they are right or wrong; 3 they dn't have a clue; 4 when you ask it is as if it is an invitation for them to come check other stuff out; 4 they don't have a clue; 5 they don't have any interest in helping you anyway. Good for Pork, he's found someone to rely on. I prefer to rely on independant, objective knowledge - that automatically rules out the govt. Don is right: hyou decide who gets benefits, when and how (subject to anti discrmination rules and some other regs) If you ask the govt to help run your business, it'll be more than happy to, and you soon won't have it. They're on our back too much as it is; don't invite them in. Hug a Vet!

Don D · May 2004

Pork, my good friend and neighbor. I have no problem with you saying you listened to the federal investigator's advice and laid it upon a feather cushion and walked away from it, smiling. What I do have a problem with is your passing off that same bad and erroneous advice as good advice on the Forum and that's what you did in your original post when you suggested the questioner call the federal labor office. They have no jurisdiction. Would you listen to the county welfare director's admonition to you about your breaking the state gaming laws on the length of bass in your boat? So whether or not they offer those suggestions during audits, it behooves HR professionals who know better to not pass on that advice.

Eat Mo' Possum.

Don D · May 2004

Why aren't you guys at work on Saturday morning like I am? And speaking of the Federal Wage/Hour guy; I ran an ad when my kids were toddlers, for a person to babysit/clean house, etc. for two working parents. In my ad, I mentioned "Excellent opportunity for retired person". I got a letter in the mail at my house from the Regional DOL guy, Richard Eckerd. He enclosed a tear sheet from the paper with my ad highlighted in yellow. His letter accused me of attempting to pay cash wages to somebody on social security with no taxes withheld. I fumed all night long, called him and wrote him a letter. What I said to him cannot be printed on the Forum.

Shadowfax is exactly right. There are so many buffoons in government offices most of you would not believe it!

Full Time / Part Time

Comments